Versatility of Olympus 12-50mm f 3.5-6.3

An old Reveunon 50mm f 1.8 M42 single coated lens,  the reason for the low contrast is the poor coating and the lack of details is because of very thin DoF with 3 extension tubes at about 5 cm away from the subject,  even with f16.

I had to heavily process the Raw to get to how it looks now,  +50 contrast, - 50 Black, +75 Sharpness at +50 Details and +50 Vibrance

L0n3Gr3yW0lf wrote:

As much as I have been loving my Panasonic GX7 it's feeling very empty on the wide side of lenses because currently I own Sigma 19mm f 2.8 Art and Sigma 60mm f 2.8 Art as native lenses. I have been feeling the need for something around 12mm though I never experienced wider then 14mm (from the first version of the 14-42mm kit lens that I do not own anymore, and never seem particularly happy with the sharpness of it).

I found 2 offers for Olympus 12-50mm f 3.5-6.3 at 200 $ and 250 $ (used obviously) and I thought I don't like the size (very long lens even if its a pretty nice focal length) compared to 12-32mm f 3.5-5.6. But the idea of 0.72x macro power is very very tempting because I could cancel the wish to get an old 50 or 100mm macro lens and save up some money. And the 12mm is a lot more interesting then the 14mm from the 14-42mm f 3.5-5.6 MK II and 14-42mm f 3.5 5.6 PZ X. How does the Olympus handle with the GX7 ? I have also seen a few Panasonic 14-140mm at around 300 $ but I'm not sure the sharpness and distortions are to well balanced for such a big zoom range in just 7.5 cm size lens.

Can someone tell me how well does the Olympus 12-50mm f 3.5-5.6 for macro shots of eyes, something that I have been very interested lately but not very successful (and very difficult to do). Can I get better image quality and, hopefully, easier use then an old Revuenon 50mm f 1.8 M42 with 3 macro extension tubes ?

The 12-50mm is not a long lens, its not much bigger than any other standard length kit lens (especially when you take into account lens hoods)

Pictured alongside Panasonic`s old 14-42 (this one trombones a fair bit, the 12-50mm is a fixed length)

Hmm, I think $200 for that lens is a steal, but also think you need to consider its pros and cons.

It is a very versatile and nice lens to use, with fast and silent AF, manual and electronic zoom, internal focus, weather sealing, and very nice 12mm at the wide end plus 50mm at the long end, plus the macro function.  It is perhaps the nicest m4/3 lens i own with respect to handling.  Photos have very nice color and contrast and are appealing.  It does not feel like a large lens (i use it on EM5).

But it is not the sharpest lens around.  Mine has consistently 'failed' every pixel level comparison with other standard zoom lenses that I own.  Having said that, I've never looked at an actual photo and though 'gee, I wished I used a sharper lens'.  Away from the computer and pixel level viewing, images look better than tests.

It has slow aperture speeds, which might be a problem for taking macro eye shots (how do you light them?).  And the macro is pretty limited and might show the lack of sharpness more acutely.  I'll try to take some test photos if my dog will cooperate.

BTW, when I first got my 60mm macro lens, I took eye shots of my dog just to see what the lens could do.  I was pretty freaked out when I actually saw what my dog's eyes looked like that close up!  Particularly when I saw all the gunk (sloughed skin, dirt, grease, who knows what else) accumulated around the eyelashes. Things I wish I hadn't seen!

Pikme wrote:

Hmm, I think $200 for that lens is a steal, but also think you need to consider its pros and cons.

It is a very versatile and nice lens to use, with fast and silent AF, manual and electronic zoom, internal focus, weather sealing, and very nice 12mm at the wide end plus 50mm at the long end, plus the macro function. It is perhaps the nicest m4/3 lens i own with respect to handling. Photos have very nice color and contrast and are appealing. It does not feel like a large lens (i use it on EM5).

But it is not the sharpest lens around. Mine has consistently 'failed' every pixel level comparison with other standard zoom lenses that I own. Having said that, I've never looked at an actual photo and though 'gee, I wished I used a sharper lens'. Away from the computer and pixel level viewing, images look better than tests.

It has slow aperture speeds, which might be a problem for taking macro eye shots (how do you light them?). And the macro is pretty limited and might show the lack of sharpness more acutely. I'll try to take some test photos if my dog will cooperate.

BTW, when I first got my 60mm macro lens, I took eye shots of my dog just to see what the lens could do. I was pretty freaked out when I actually saw what my dog's eyes looked like that close up! Particularly when I saw all the gunk (sloughed skin, dirt, grease, who knows what else) accumulated around the eyelashes. Things I wish I hadn't seen!

If you already have a few reasonably sharp primes, the 45 or Sigma 60 the cheap tubes do a pretty good job at turning these into useful macro lenses.

Sounds like your dog needs a very long bath :p...

I have been comparing the Olympus 12-50mm to other kit lenses and it doesn't seem to far off but you can't expect much for a kit lens either.  The only other cheap lens that has 12mm is the Panasonic 12-32mm and that is harder to find in my country.  I did find a Samsung 12mm f2 at around 275 bucks and though I expect the image quality is better it loses the versatility and macro fun factor (and on a more personal note I love the idea of the lens on a APCS sensor more the at 2x crop factor).

I had the first version of Panasonic 14-42mm and I was very annoyed by very soft left side of the lens at 14 and 42mm. Don't know but I seem to have often problems with Panasonic products and their build quality.

I tried to take some shots of my dog's eyes, but they are all at ISO 6400 and up, so not really comparable. Plus, her pupils were so large that I basically ended up with self portraits, plus shots of my living room and even the outdoors street through a window behind me all reflected in her eyes.

This might be more useful http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2011/12/olympus-mzuiko-12-50mm-f35-63-review.html

I know the feeling, for the image that I took of the eye I used a basic but big setup like a desk lamp (I don't own any flashes as I love natural light more), a towel to make the person's head rest more comfortably on my desk, a tripod and my phone as a remote control and live preview. The reason why I managed to keep ISO so low. I do plan to try to use as much natural light as possible, even with the risk of more reflections on the iris.

Robin Wong's review of Olympus 12-50mm is one of the reasons I was thinking of getting this lens, those, well not macro but, close up images of wildlife is so much better in terms of sharpness, and I expect ease of use, and contrast compared to what I usually get with M42 extension tubes and a nifty fifty with reasonable close focus capability. And lets not forget that it does 12mm too ^u^.

L0n3Gr3yW0lf wrote:

I know the feeling, for the image that I took of the eye I used a basic but big setup like a desk lamp (I don't own any flashes as I love natural light more), a towel to make the person's head rest more comfortably on my desk, a tripod and my phone as a remote control and live preview. The reason why I managed to keep ISO so low. I do plan to try to use as much natural light as possible, even with the risk of more reflections on the iris.

Robin Wong's review of Olympus 12-50mm is one of the reasons I was thinking of getting this lens, those, well not macro but, close up images of wildlife is so much better in terms of sharpness, and I expect ease of use, and contrast compared to what I usually get with M42 extension tubes and a nifty fifty with reasonable close focus capability. And lets not forget that it does 12mm too ^u^.

They might be better lenses out there than the 12-50mm, but not at its price and feature set.

All in I`ve found it not to be a bad performer, it might not be particularly fast at its long end (f6.3) but on balance f6.3 is only a tiny bit slower than f5.6, a difference of a tiny 1/3 of a stop and most people forget that this lens is a 4x zoom, most f5.6 kit lenses are only a 3x (excluding the new Panasonic 12-60mm)

robwarrenarmes wrote:

Fwiw i recently ebayed a good condition Olympus m.zuiko 12-50mm and got £83 + postage. Personally i wouldn't pay $200, let alone $250 on this basis. It was OK, but when i started using primes i never used it, and sold it when i got the 12-40 Pro. I have heard of others who had good experiences with this lens but it wasn't suited to me.

I am planning on moving out of the country this summer, for work, and the it's the reason why I wanted to get a wider lens and versatile if possible. The price is also a big factor because most of my funds will have to go to relocating.

Well when push comes to shove worse I can do is get an Olympus 14-42mm or the first version of Panasonic 14-42mm cheaper.